• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Sata version question for raid 5

G

gentle

Weaksauce
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
92
before all the anti seagate comments, i have had good luck with them, and horrible luck with WD so i stick with the seagate. i currently have 3 7200.12's(SATA 3GB) 1tb raid 5'ed. I see the egg has 7200.12 sata 6gb 's.

I can not find anything on these on seagates site, and even the drive models off of newegg come back on seagates site as sata 3.0GB.

My question is would these be better at 6.0GB sata or would there be no noticeable difference. or should suck it up and get a 60GB or 120 Gig SSD for an os drive and use the raid for data. If this is the popular route any suggestions as I am completely out of the SSD game.

Thanks guys, I am mainly a lurker here but find tons of useful info.
 
Unless you are using an addon hardware RAID card, RAID 5 performance is typically slower than a single drive. If you are looking for performance, RAID 0 or SSD.
 
Krispy Kritter said:
Unless you are using an addon hardware RAID card, RAID 5 performance is typically slower than a single drive.
Click to expand...

Totally untrue.

Both software RAID and FakeRAID can and do have better peformance using RAID5 than a single drive. It doesn't require hardware RAID in order to have better performance.

The only problem with RAID5 under FakeRAID would be the horrible rebuild times.
As for software RAID, under a Linux/UNIX distro, it is very powerful.
The only software RAID to be mindful of is Windows software RAID, where RAID5 isn't very stable, but then again, neither is RAID0 for that matter.
Windows RAID is really only good if you are going with RAID1 and your mobo doesn't support FakeRAID, so aside from being cheap, there isn't much of a reason to use it.



OP, you will not notice any difference between SATA-II and SATA-III on a HDD.
HDDs have only recently, at the very top-end, been able to barely surpass SATA-I speeds, so you will be golden either way.

Most likely the drives are SATA-II, but if not, it makes little difference.

I personally would use a SSD for the OS, and use the RAID5 array for data, but either way will net you decent performance, depending on what you do.
 
thanks for the feedback guys, i think i will go the ssd route for my main drive and move the raid to data status.
 
gentle said:
thanks for the feedback guys, i think i will go the ssd route for my main drive and move the raid to data status.
Click to expand...

I've owned and used more than a couple SSD's, and unless you've got money burning a hole in your pocket, the best thing to do is buy a relatively small SSD, put your OS and every day applications on it, and put all your big data/games on a couple big disks.

Also, minor note, SATA-III is 6Gb/s which is not 6GB/s. 6 Gigabits/sec ~= 750 Megabytes/sec.
 
MrWizard6600 said:
Also, minor note, SATA-III is 6Gb/s which is not 6GB/s. 6 Gigabits/sec ~= 750 Megabytes/sec.
Click to expand...

Actually, 6Gbps is divided by 10b, not 8b, making it 600MB/s peak throughput, at half-duplex.

Not 750MB/s, just fyi.

SATA-1 = 150MB/s
SATA-2 = 300MB/s
SATA-3 = 600MB/s
 
I stand corrected then. But my experience using RAID 5 on two different MB's on a Windows machine were not that speedy. And definetly not faster than a quality 7200rpm.
 
Krispy Kritter said:
I stand corrected then. But my experience using RAID 5 on two different MB's on a Windows machine were not that speedy. And definetly not faster than a quality 7200rpm.
Click to expand...

Was this Windows RAID or motherboard, aka FakeRAID?

Also, what drives were used? SATA? PATA?

If it were Windows RAID with RAID5, I could potentially see that as being slower than a single drive since Windows RAID is not very efficient.

The only problem I've seen with FakeRAID when using RAID5 is that the rebuild times on a failed drive take far longer than if software or hardware RAID were used.

EDIT:
Oh and by the way, this is what I think of your precious HDDs! mwahaha! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQYPCPB1g3o&feature=channel_video_title
:D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top